Update for 2:15 p.m. ET Dec. 23: Nickell responded to Di Lazzaro’s question, and added a couple of questions of his own:
"Paolo Di Lazzaro claims the Turin ‘Shroud’ coloration depth is 0.2 micrometers, but surely he does not claim that that was uniformly measured throughout the cloth. The coloration indeed appears to be generally confined to the topmost fibrils (although the face image does show faintly on the back of the cloth). Using a two-part hypothesis I put forward in 1983, Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli has produced a replica shroud with such superficial staining. So let me ask Lazzaro a question in turn: Have you been able, using your high-intensity ultraviolet laser technique, to produce a replica shroud yourself? Until you do, shouldn’t you stop slashing carelessly with Occam’s razor?"
Nickell (picture provided by Joe Nickell) has bought into the Garlaschelli hypothesis by claiming it as his own. It’s a stretch. It’s foolish, too, because it is clear that Garlaschelli did not succeed in producing a replica at a microscopic level or that the match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images. Did he miss the point entirely? Di Lazzaro wasn’t trying to replicate a shroud. What does Occam’s razor have to do with any of this?
Incidentally, the online poll at MSNBC seems to have settled down. There is no evidence of attempts from other blogs (easily detectable) to stuff the results.